Blurring the Lines?

The scene:  last Monday's public hearing on the 2011-12 school district budget.

At issue: Increasing the tax levy beyond the current school board parameter of 3.5% tax levy increase to fund $600,000 in new educational initiatives.

The cost: We were told "about another 1%" increase to the tax levy (making it a 4.5% increase).

The fact-check:  We have been repeatedly told that each $45,000 of additional spending will raise the tax levy 0.1%.  Did these guys that make up the budget flunk basic math? If the additional increase to the tax levy were to be "1%", that would mean spending only $450,000...right?  You know ...10 times 45 = 450 and 10 times 0.1 = 1.0.  But...they're SEEKING $600,000 of spending!!!  That additional $150,000 will add another 0.33% to the tax levy.  So, let's be 100% above board, gentlemen...funding all those initiatives would raise the tax levy increase to 4.83%!!!!!

The secondary concern:  We sincerely appreciate the impassioned plea from the teacher who spoke in favor of the additional spending.  She spoke well, and she spoke convincingly.  Actually she's better at public speaking than a lot of the usual talking heads.  What deeply concerns us, however, is that she doesn't even live within the Sun Prairie School District!  How nice to put out a plea for spending additional monies when you won't have to bear the burden of the additional property taxes.  More to the point, you may even personally benefit from the move.  We do give her kudos for at acknowledging that she does not live within the district.

The takeaway: Isn't it enough that Troop Culver is quietly operating behind the scenes pushing parents groups (not to mention teachers and administrators) to "flood" the public hearings to speak out in favor of additional spending? Certainly, there are no flies on Timmy C!  He learned from October 2009 that he's gotta get his peeps to outnumber the seniors and other taxpayers who oppose runaway spending.

However, there's a very blurred line when it comes to public hearings on a budget. Those who speak have their comments become part of the record. That record theoretically could in turn influence the school board's decision whether or not to increase spending. That becomes a problem, when those who speak do not live within the school district and therefore are not affected by subsequent tax increases. It is against state statute for such people to vote at a public hearing. Shouldn't that extend to speaking at the meeting? Or even attending the meeting?

If you are a resident of the district, by all means, speak your mind, pro or con. But if you are part of the school district machine--and especially if you do not live in the district-- then you either shouldn't be there, or be part of the administrative panel in order that it's very clear that you have a conflict of interest.

Food for thought:  Does the school board EVER consider, before they vote, what the rest of the school districts are doing?  Read the papers people.  Phil Frei likes to point out that we're in the minority on many things spending-wise.  Well, for 2011-12, we're in the minority of districts that are raising taxes.  And those few that are increasing levies are nowhere near increasing them by 3.5% let alone 4.8+%.    Google "2011-12 Wisconsin school district budgets" and check it out for yourselves.

The 2011 Winner of the "I'm Gonna Take My Basketball and Go Home Award" Goes To...

....School Board Treasurer Jim "SeaBass" McCourt.   McCourt seemed a tad grumpy Monday night as more informed school board members seemed to hesitate before writing any more big checks.  McCourt, on the other hand seems poised to continue his "Damn the struggling taxpayers, let's spend money" ways.  When it appeared that yet another motion he supported was going down in flames, there was an underlying tone in McCourt's voice as he stated,

"We seem to be stopping...just waiting to see what happens...how do you run a school district [that way]?"
--Board Treasurer Jim McCourt

Valentine's Day Spend-A-Thon!

Vanilla after vanilla school board agenda.  An occasional spark, here and there but generally Dr. Feelgood style happycrappy.  That's the way school board business has been for several months.  Then.... just as many folks will be [very happily with absolutely no reservations whatsoever] celebrating the joys of Saint Valentine with their significant other...BAM! ZAP! WOW!   School board got that Boom Boom Pow!  


Just seems a tad fishy that all of a sudden we have this jam-packed agenda for both FTT and the full board...on a night where many folks have reservations elsewhere.  Really! Really, JohnE?  This meeting couldn't have been moved up a day...or the agenda covered at another meeting?  Really?  The board continually cajoles community residents for showing up at board meetings instead of appearing first at the committee level.  Did you folks even LOOK at that FTT agenda and all the multitude of big ticket items being discussed?


These are some of the hot issues that will be discussed:
Kobussen Contract (School Board)
Isn't this interesting!  First this appeared as an "addendum" to a $10M contract.  Now it's termed "revisions".  Addendum? Hah!  The only reason for this "addendum:" is that the original contract was prepared and signed without the original --critical-- addendum which determines transportation costs.  Is that what we get from $35.00+ per hour staff?  Board member John Welke was the only board member that requested a critical legal review of the revisions.  Welke rightfully questioned if the district had the authority, based on the original contract language, to solicit other, less expensive carriers for the 4K program.

 “The contract is ambiguous. If the District does not get prior consent or agreement from Kobussen but acts unilaterally, Kobussen could object and assert that contracting with another vendor constitutes a breach of contract. Thus, unless the District has prior agreement or approval from Kobussen, then contracting for transportation from another vendor could expose the district to litigation with uncertain outcome”.
---SPASD legal counsel Bill Fahey on whether the district could use other options for 4K transportation

Contract Extension for District Administrator Tim Culver
This is a waste of time.  Legally, by failing to act prior to January 31, 2011 (at least nothing was ever done PUBLICLY), the contract defaults to an extension through June 2013.  The big question though...is what aren't we seeing?   What decisions have been made behind closed doors regarding Culver's 6 contract proposals?
New HR position
Perhaps 'nuff said...but is this the time to add administrative new staff?  And is this ONE individual going to really effect change where 3 years of intra-district efforts have not?
New baseball stands for Summit Field
The situation report doesn't appear to 1tell the whole story.  We hear from reliable sources that the reason for spending $70K on new bleachers (hell..we haven't even used the original "new" ones yet!) is that the view from the ones we bought is largely blocked by the above ground "dugouts".  Apparently somebody had the brilliant notion that if they call 'em "dugouts" they must be below ground and therefor wouldn't block views from the grandstands. Hmmm...whodathunk?  Genius!    Now, of course, somebody wants to spend $70K MORE of the $900,000 leftover from construction.
Ashley Field
Like the Twilight saga...this story just seems to keep building.  Now the pricetag is up to $1.7M.  Of course they at least determined that at $2.3M, it would cost too much to make changes to the new high school field.  Is this school board incumbent for re-election David Stackhouse's swan song?  Is he looking for HIS legacy?  How about we all stop looking for our own leg-acies and start trying to get an academic LEG UP on other school districts?
District Office remodel: $70,000
OK...enough with the fat cat office remodel, eh?  We already have gold name plates on doors fro cry eye!  When does it stop!
Secured Door Access
Here's an item that at least makes sense...securing the buildings for our students.
Our Particular Favorite...New Diving Boards.
OK...so they only cost $3,400.  So we should just do it, right?  EXCUSE US!  We BOUGHT--and had delivered over a year ago--- brand spanking new diving boards that even the district says meet WIAA standards.  Except....and this is good...so give us a drum roll for effect...the diving boards aren't the "preferred ones" used for competitions.  So...the threat is that if we don't replace them, we may not be able to host competitions. So...let's just replace perfectly good, brand new diving boards...right?  We don't freakin' think so!  You want new/better boards?  Then make a stink with the contractor who purchased the ones we have.

Second Verse...Same as the First

We received this from a resident who either attended or caught the video re-run of the recent budget hearing held on June 21st. Enjoy.

........................

All indications are that the district spent this year doing the same thing they did last year—motivating the “wrong” people to show up to the October meeting. Between now and October it appears that they will overpay for a pool manager. Though it is difficult for most people to evaluate the wisdom of most expenditures made by the district, each of us has a pretty good idea of what a pool manager should make. If someone really cares, they could do a job search and find out what pool managers are making these days.

What they would find is that Milwaukee YMCA is hiring a manager for aquatic facilities at 2 locations, with a budget of more than a half million dollars and responsibility to about 10,000 members. They are hiring this individual in the $38k-44k range. Further searches show that that is about average nationwide for the position (a position less complicated than the one we need to fill).

On June 14th, the school board unanimously approved spending $51,250

to fill a pool manager position that pays 20% less everywhere else in the world. Since this is a number that is pretty easy to evaluate, it serves as a proxy for how smart they are being with our money. If they are being that careless with that money, they are probably overpaying other places too. Actions like this will make the October meeting a tough one for board members.

................................

SP-EYE's take. We agree with what this resident presents. However, one teensey weensy little fact makes up for the apparent discrepancy in the hiring salary. You see...our Pool Manager (sorry...we're not falling for the touchy feely, use-big-words-to-justify-an-exorbitant-salary trick) will be an employee of a school district (ours). School districts are the Exxon-Mobils of the education game. Recession proof. Big Pay. Oh... and the CEOs cost us a fortune.

The Boy Who Cried "Ashley!"

Three times the Ashley field lockers & turf proposal has been on the agenda. And three times, we get a bunch of information, but no one is ready to have a real discussion. In fact, the whole subject has yielded WAY more questions than answers.

The bottom line is that eyes are looking at the school board to the tune of another $425K. Haven't we spent enough?

• Putting turf on Ashley field? Awesome idea.
• Make Ashley field less "hallowed" and open it to other community uses? Absolutely!
• Create more/better locker space? Sure...if you really think it's needed. But just don't tell us that visiting teams and referees need better "digs" too and then design something ONLY for the home team to use.
• (With all due respect to Joni Mitchell...) Pave Ashley's baseball field and put up a parking lot? Gee...not so sure about that one.

Here's how things have progressed on the Ashley Field proposal.

4/26/2010, School Board meeting (Informational Items):
Ok...here comes the pitch....high and outside, ball 1.
Stackhouse indicates that he'll come forward with more complete information for a full discussion and action (hopefully) at the 5/10/2010 school board meeting.

5/10/2010, School Board meeting (official agenda item):
He's in the wind-up..the stretch...a curveball low and away...swing and a miss...Strike 1
Looking around the room, we don't see anyone but the usual suspects. Hmmm...wouldn't one expect a big presence and comments from the football folks to help grease the skids for this project? Ah, grasshopper, well your eyes serve you. Briefly it is discussed that the plan needs more time; a motion is made to bring the item back for discussion at the next FTT meeting.

5/24/2010, FTT meeting:
He gets the sign, here comes the pitch...a knuckler...swing and another miss...Strike 2.
Again, we note the lack of any "football" people in the room. This doesn't bode well. We're predicting a bail. Indeed, for the second time, Stackhouse pulls the plug on the agenda item indicating that some more information came in that needs to be reviewed. Our take: Costs have probably increased markedly over early estimates.

Ashley Field Proposal: Lots of Handouts; Few Questions Answered

So many questions surround the 11th hour Ashley Field Artificial Turf/Locker Room Proposal.
The more you dig into it, the more questions arise...questions that are not answered in the documents provided.

But of course not.
That is status quo with the world in general.
When something is being given the full-court press, it's human nature to point out the POSITIVE aspects, and ignore the negative. Sometimes, in our haste to get things moving, we even forget to include some costs or facts that perhaps need to be considered.
And that's the case with the Ashley Field proposal. Sure...now....3 years after the high school decision...a case is being made to improve the quality of facilities at Ashley Field.

Question No. 1: Why weren't these same concerns raised earlier?
Costs could have been built into the $100M project which is now winding down.


Timing

Clearly plans for this were drawn up last summer. Question#2: Why is it that not a peep was heard until now?
...even AFTER any opportunity for referendum money?


The Busing Problem
So the issue seems to be the concern over the cost of transportation from the new high school to Ashley Field.

Problem #1:Athletes from the new high school will need to be transported from the new high school to Ashley Field for competitions. The locker facilities that have been used in the past will now be used for the Upper Middle School. The locker rooms in the SOAR building are too small to allow an entire team to meet, so many members are left out of the team meetings and need to congregate in the gym area. The cost is estimated at $3,000 to $5,000 to transport the athletes for home games. Athletes and officials have slipped on the floor in the gym, which can expose the district to liability.

Here's another newsflash. Madison has 4 high schools and only two of them have fields. LaFollette has Lussier Stadium which [ahem] was donated by the Lussier family. How do you suppose the other schools get to their "home" field?

Question#3: Why, again, do we need to dress at the new high school and bus over to Ashley?
Players now drive separately up to the high school dress in the locker room. Why can't that continue to happen? Can't the equipment be shuttled over to Ashley on Friday afternoons? Certainly we have enough district-owned vans and trucks...right?

The Locker Room Space Problem
Question #4: Why, again, can't players dress at CHUMS---just as they have in the past?
SPHS has locker space for 1800 kids. CHUMS will have less than 1000. Did we delete locker space as part of the renovations? And....even if they did...locker space for 1000 kids HAS to be enough for 80 football players....right?

“I’ve been told there’s inadequate locker room space for the teams to change into their uniforms” at the upper middle school"
--David Stackhouse

You've been "told"? Oh, REALLY"....Isn't that nothing more than conjecture, then? Don't we make DATA-driven decisions in this district?

Liability Problem? Really?
"Athletes and officials have slipped on the floor in the [SOAR building] gym, which can expose the district to liability."

Umm...did we miss something? The proposal appears to be to design a new locker room for SUN PRAIRIE...NOT for visiting teams or officials....right?
Question #5: So how does this proposal even address the liability issue?

Use of Ashley Field By Other Groups
Question #6: Seriously...would Ashley Field EVER be made available to other sports groups in the community?
The Ashley Proposal Situation Report opens with:
It is our goal to respect the wishes of Mr. Ashley and create a field that will be used by more youth in the community, as well as an additional focal point of the excellence in Sun Prairie Schools and Athletics.

That's OUR goal too! [ when you read that, if you've seen the film "Stakeout", recall Emilio Estevez and Richard Dreyfuss crying in unison, "Stickley's OUR favorite too" to Rosie O'Donnell]

Seriously...people have screamed for years to use Ashley field...and always been rebuffed. Thou shalt not play on thy hallowed ground! How exactly does putting turf on it increase the likelihood of letting other teams/groups use the field? The next thing we'll hear--after it's installed--- is that we have to minimize the utilization to prevent costly tears in the surface. And don't say that want happen. Let's keep it real and not offer any pronouncements that--after all--can only come from the school district.

Inflated Savings Estimates?
Question#7: How realistic are the "rough" estimates of maintenance costs?
The "rough cost estimate" shows cost of annual maintenance of current field to be $60K per year. Are you kidding me? Web-based estimates and case studies show more like $20-30K per year...Are we REALLY spending $60K/yr (and if so, why?). If not...why is the budget inflated?
The proposal doesn't include any annual maintenance costs for a synthetic turf field.....cost are estimated at LEAST $5K/yr. The proposal doesn't include cost of disposing of artificial turf (8-10 yrs) of about $130K. That's $13-16K/yr to budget for right there!

Maintenance cost savings over 15 years........................$240,000 (that's a far cry from $600K/10 yrs)
--Schuylerville Schools, IL (Feb. 2010)

There ARE maintenance costs for artificial turf:
---Repairs (seams)
---Replacement every 8-10 years
---Disposal cost upon replacement – Infill systems filled and topdressed with crumb rubber material that is typically made from ground automobile tires may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated to be $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges.

Just Keeping Up with the Jones...er...Middletons...and Waunakees...and Veronas?
A funny thing happened while reading the paper this morning...we came across
this article about schools looking at turf fields

Waunakee: A $700,000 field — part of a proposed $1.5 million remodeling of the district’s outdoor facilities including seating, a visitor’s side concession stand and lighting — would be paid for entirely with donations, just as the field at Middleton’s Breitenbach Stadium field was.

Well...it seems the Joneses are doing THEIR projects entirely with donations. Hmm...fancy that.

LOST: One school board member, reported to be fiscally conservative
Where is the fiscal conservative David Stackhouse who said this:

[on Charter School] Where I have a problem with this right now, we’re opening a new high school, we just opened 4K, we have enough things going on in my eyes. We need to take a step back and bring it under control before we go forward with another. I think a year from now we’ll be in a better situation to look into it.”
---STAR 1/14/2010

or this:
That seems like an awful lot of fixtures for baseball and softball,” Stackhouse said. “That’s a lot of energy.” He added that the district with 56 lights around the track and soccer field, “it sounds like we could host football games there.”
STAR 3/11/2010

or this:
Stackhouse voted against the recommending these projects to the board because he believed the bleachers still had life in them. "I don’t think that’s a wise investment at this time. Other projects need to get done,” he added.
STAR 3/11/2010

Suddenly Stackhouse is all onboard with spending money again. Hmmm.

More on the Artificial vs. Natural Turf Debate

Another ViewPoint: Natural Turf is Better

In 2008 survey conducted to evaluate the preferred playing surface among NFL players, Out of 1565 players from all 32 teams, 71% preferred to play on natural grass fields.
---Sportsturf Managers Association

Another cost analysis:

Yet another maintenance cost comparison

---

Look...you'll get no argument here. The field turf looks nice....arguably a little TOO nice for high school (makes us think Badger lite)...but nice. If the quarterback club is game, we say, "Have at it!" Rob Hamilton didn't come looking for money when turf was desired for the baseball field...he just went out and quietly raised it. That being said, if the locker rooms are truly the issue, the QB club wants to invest its fund-raising on building the locker room they seem to desire, and leave the turf for the future.

Whatever is decided...
Let's agree to be 100% above board.
Let there be NO undisclosed or "forgotten" costs.
Consider a FAIR 10-15 year cost comparison.

Stackhouse pushing for a $475K Ashley Referendum?

Good news, folks...the recession's gotta be over.
"What?", you say. You didn't get that memo?
Well...it must be over if School Board member David Stackhouse is pushing for the district commit $475,000 MORE money to improve Ashley Field.

Read the Situation Report for the Monday 4-26-2010 meeting

Ok. Stand down (for now, anyway). It's only an "informational" agenda item--meaning the board cannot take action on it---but it's clear that the intent is to bring it BACK for action at the Board's May meeting.


But this is one loaded potato. The Stackhouse-Kaminski Report contains 13 attachments (several with multiple parts) and a total of over 50 MEGAbytes in downloads. Geez...think of all the Itunes you could get for that!

Seriously...we get it. We love football too. But you know what? Here's just the top tier of reasons why the school board needs to politely say, "NO, but thank you for bringing this forward".

1. The initial intent was to siphon off some of that referendum surplus (Hmmm...does that explain Stackhouse's opposition to several of the other projects proposed?). But the legal opinion was that referendum funds cannot be used for Ashley Field. Stay tuned though, because we hear that "they" are asking for a second opinion on that.

2. Talk is turning toward a referendum specifically for Ashley Field improvements. Stackhouse asked Tim Culver to research how much revenue could be generated by a one-year tax levy equal to $12 on a home valued at $200K. A referendum SOLELY to improve a sports field? Is Sun Prairie trying to be a great SPORTS district...or a great SCHOOL district?

3. Contrary to popular belief, there ain't no fat lady singin' and the recession most definitely is NOT over. The budget was tough to swallow last year, resulting in an unprecedented taxpayer vote to slash the levy by $2M. Newsflash...the economy isn't much better, and the proposed budget already calls for a nearly 8% rise in the mill rate!

4. The locker rooms at the existing high school were always sufficient. How could there be LESS space when the school will now house 50% fewer students?

5. If these changes were so sorely needed...why were they not part of the CHUMS modification plan 2 years ago?

---

A good school board separates "wants" from "needs". Like Caren Diedrich once said, There are many wants; [the board] provides what is needed".

As Al Borland would say, "We don't think so, Dave"

Referendum Shenanigans Afoot?

Such questions!
A school board member SPEARHEADING a campaign to wrestle referendum dollars? Is that something an elected official WHO WILL VOTE ON ANY SUBSEQUENT NMOTION should be doing? Or worse yet...to create ANOTHER referendum? Here we go again...quiet Monday night shenanigans, hoping that only those voices "in the know" and who will support this movement will be in attendance.

Concerned Taxpayer has a valid point. Perhaps it was NOT a good idea in the first place. Why did we build a high school with new sports fields with the intention of playing football on Ashley Field? And more importantly...who declared this recession over with? Are people in any better financial shape to be spending MORE money? And why is it that---without community pressure---the music people would have had to pay 100% of the cost for a concert grand piano, yet Stackhouse wants to spend MORE tax dollars on sports?

It is time to blow the dust and cobwebs off of the mystery behind Ashley field. During the high school planning phases, several times comments from the school board table indicated that, as part of the Asley family agreement, something along the lines of "If the SPASD varsity football does not hold its home games at Ashley Field, then the school district loses the ownership of the land". It's time to tell the truth and tell it publicly. What legal holds are there on Ashley Field?

---

Here is something that needs to be blogged and squashed IMO. The football people made a decision to use Ashley field, and now they want to upgrade it when there is some extra money laying around. There is no way we get that money back just so the players can dress at the stadium. I think the original decision was dumb, but I don't think this is something that we should be dropping $600K+ on!

Concerned Tax Payer
.....................................................
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Tim Culver"
Date: April 10, 2010 8:09:39 AM CDT ......on a Saturday, no less!
Subject: Re: Ashley Field/ Football questions

Phil [Frei] & Jim [McClowry]:
Please prepare the response to David's request. Please put together and deliver your report to him (and the whole Board) by Friday April 16.

Thank you,

Tim

"DAVID STACKHOUSE" 4/9/2010 1:50 PM >>>
Tim, Phil and Jim,

I have been approached by the football community to spearhead a campaign to upgrade the facilities for Ashley field.
They will present at Monday's board meeting and I will follow-up with a situation report for the April 26 meeting.

Information that I am looking for:

Referendum presentation material for the new high school.

Bond counsel's opinion on using referendum dollars for improvements to Ashley Field.

Attendance at home football games for a typical season:
1. Number of paid attendees.
2. Dollar amount of admission receipts.

How much does the district anticipate it will cost annually to transport athletes from the new high school to Ashley field for games?

How much does it cost the district annually for maintenance and preparation at Ashley field?

How much revenue can be generated by a one year levy based on $12 increase to a house valued at $200,000.
I.E.: If a referendum was offered for a one year period that the average house paid $12, how much total dollars would we receive?

On construction at Ashley:
1. If we use referendum dollars, are we locked in to using Findorff?

2. If the funds are generated separately, are we locked in with Findorff or is another contractor acceptable?

I believe I will most likely have additional questions, but this should get me started.

Thanks,
David

FTT Forwards Some--Not All-- Projects to School Board "For Consideration"

On Tuesday night, a special meeting of the FTT was held to review and recommend (or not) a list of additional projects associated with the new high school and upper middle school using the estimated $1.1M in "surplus" from the $100 M construction project.
At their last meeting, FTT members tabled this issue, requesting the school board provide the committee with an amount (of the $1.1M) that the board would allocate for additional projects. Subtly missed by many, this was yet another incidence of the board not wishing to touch a political "hot potato", particularly as elections draw near. You see, many in the community feel that the community deserves to receive at least SOME of the "$1.1M surplus". Of course board members will tell you that they are only hearing from community member who tell them to "spend it all".

We don't think that really captures the pulse of the community. And our feckless school board once again abdicated any sense of responsibility. Instead of OWNING their decision (eh, Tim?) the board refused to establish a "cap" on the extent to which the $1.1M could be spent. That's right, folks, they refused to say that even one dime of the $1.1M surplus must be held in reserve and returned to the taxpayers. Instead, they left the FTT Committee to hold the bag, so to speak. Oh the board knew that there would be great pressure on the FTT committee to spend it all as various groups came out in force to rally for their piece of the pie. The board just wanted to put itself in the most favorable light and be able to say from its lofty table, "We have to respect the desires of the FTT Committee...if they say spend it all, then we need to support that."

Welke Seeks Middle Ground
But they didn't. That's right, the FTT did not "spend it all". Perhaps it was FTT Citizen Representative -- and School Board candidate John Welke's words that struck a chord. Welke encouraged the committee to return a portion of the surplus to the committee as an act of good faith and to demonstrate good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Perhaps leaning on the old adage, "it takes money to make money", Welke further encouraged the committee to place a premium on the consideration of those projects that could serve as revenue generators for the district. The pool hallway was a perfect example. Pool meets are a great source of revenue to offset costs for any school district, but, without the hallway project, it would be very difficult to hold meets at the new pool. Similarly, lighted ball fields allow for continuous play after dark, a setting which works well for tournaments. And tournaments held in Sun Prairie mean not only revenues for the school district, but all for the city itself, as tournament teams and their travelling fanbase will take advantage of food, beverages, and shopping in our city.

Projects making the cut (votes varied from 3-2 to 5-0)
• Pool Hallway $157,000
• Grand Piano for the PAC - $75,000
Note: The FTT committee approved this on a 5-0 vote, but board member Terry Shimek, who was in the audience, voiced strong opposition. It seems Mr. Shimek agrees with Caren Diedrich and Jim McCourt that, because a group is actively raising funds for the piano, the school board doesn't have to commit a dime. That means only a 4th vote is needed to kill it...JohnE Boy Whalen perhaps?
• Wrestling mat $10,000 or less
• Company Switch for Auditorium Stage $27,000
• Lights for sports fields $520,000
--- Lights for baseball fields $195,000
--- Lights for softball fields $85,000
--- Lights for track/soccer field $240,000
• Improve PE fields (irrigation) $45,000

Projects recommended to be placed on hold
• Greenhouse $150,000

Projects about which there seems to be question

• Replace bleachers in upper middle school (existing high school) gym $152,000

Note: The STAR reports that this project was forwarded to the board for approval. Reports to SP-EYE suggest that that is not what the committee decided - that the committee did NOT vote to approve this project.

Projects which did not make the final cut
• Upper middle school (existing high school) gym facelift $46,000
• Entrance canopy for upper middle school (existing high school) $49,000

So...how much was forwarded for consideration to be spent?

If you tally the projects which we're certain were forwarded for consideration, the total is about $834K. If you then factor in the $150K for a greenhouse that the committee voted to hold in reserve for a year, the total forwarded for consideration comes to about $984...leaving about $116K available for the school board to return to taxpayers.

On the other hand, if the board believes that the bleacher project was forwarded for consideration, that brings the total for consideration NOW to $986K, with another 150L in reserve for the greenhouses. That would mean nothing goes back to the taxpayers unless a year from now, the board decides against the greenhouse.

What happens now?
This will be forwarded to the school board for consideration at its next meeting, ostenbsibly the March 22 meeting just prior to the election. Of course, in the interests of keeping their jobs, we may see some school board members scrambling to postpone this vote till AFTER the elections. Can't you just see Tim Culver whispering in John Whalen's ear, "Psst...John...you set the board agenda as President. You might want to hold off on this until after the election. After all, this is a critical decision, and all board members should own it."

Other People's Money

Times are tight. MOST of us find ourselves scrimping where we can. Cutting things flat out of our household budgets...less eating out (or none at all)....using coupons...

The bottom line is that we are making do with less.
Our school district administration, however, sees things differently. Despite TALK of cuts, it appears that it's business as usual.

Administration, and school board members like Jim (Seabass) McCourt will shake their head ans say...we're taking about a few (or ten...or twenty) dollars here. And expect you'll stop right there an d agree with them.

What we want you to do is to consider the principle.
The reality is that these dollars...or tens...or hundreds DO add up.
More importantly, every dollar we "waste" is one less dollar we have to spend where it counts...the kids.

Teachers and parents are complaining that administration lowered building thermostats 2 degrees as a cost-cutting measure. Well? Trim more of the fat from the budget, and the temperature might only need to be lowered 1 degree...or none at all.

It has to end here, folks. And the only way it ends is if enough community residents attend meetings of the school board Finance committee...or the full school board meeting and TELL THEM WHAT you think.

You see...your silence has long been viewed as acceptance/ agreement with whatever votes the school board takes. Sure...after the vote, you read about it in the paper and grumble amongst friends and coworkers. But what are you DOING about it.

The simple reality is that this school district has to be run as a business and the community needs to tell the board to stop viewing our tax dollars as Other Peoples' Money.


You've heard about the infamous $436 hammers purchased by the federal government? Or the $600 toilet seats. We can't point to anything as grandiose. But we do have one recent purchase that underscores a whole host of others. Again...get past this as an isolated issue, and see it as the problem that it is: the principle seems to be that the district administration spends frivolously because its just Other Peoples' Money.

Recently the school district purchased a date stamper for $69.49. The district indicates that " The stamp is a specialty item that stamps "Received", "the date" and "Staff Development"."

The purchase was questioned at the Finance Committee meeting, but...as usual...there's never enough time allotted for those meetings to really explore these issues. And that's not a coincidence.

A follow-up question was asked why we used the vendor we did. A question was asked as to whether we had a discounted purchasing contract with an office supply store.

The answer we got was this:

" We are currently participating in the US Communities program with Office Depot. This is a national bid program that a lot of school districts participate in or piggy back on. It is an overall savings with a price plan and contract that varies in pricing from 40% to 80% off of suggested list price.
The program is supported by the Association of School Business Officials and offers a broad span of school and office products for next day delivery. There is also a rebate each year based on Internet ordering and volume rebate for larger accounts. "

A 30-second Google search yielded dozens of less expensive options.
Perhaps more importantly, we spent 5 minutes on Office Depot's website and identified an option that was available for less than half the price paid from an non-standard vendor. Even with a salary of over $36/hour, a 5 -minute Google search costs only $3.00 of staff time.

Remember: It's NOT just about $25-$40 savings on this one item.
It's about two very basic principles:

1. Is the district serving as good stewards of the taxpayers' money?

2. Is the district doing ENOUGH to minimize costs such that the spending can be focused on the end result: education of the kids?

3 Very Simple Questions

• Do we even NEED this? (How is a date stamper for a small group of Administrators helping our kids achieve? And hey...it's not like we employ 1000 staff development people)
• Couldn't we get a viable solution for less? (It sure seems that way...or were they just being "particular" because , after all, it's just Other Peoples' Money)
• And even at 50 cents less from Office Depot, shouldn't we have purchased it from there to secure a larger volume rebate?
  

This is NOT an isolated issue
Last but not least, we need to focus on the principles at hand because this is NOT just an isolated issue. Over the past several years, we've encountered dozens of questionable expenses...and we're just beginning to scratch the surface. Sure. some save small amounts of money, but others cost us substantial sums. And with respect to small amounts, there's an old adage that it's difficult to find solutions that save 10%...but 100 savings that each save 1% result in 100% savings. It won't stop until the school board is forced to make it stop.

How do they spend Other Peoples' Money...let us count the ways

• Not one but TWO district office newspaper subscriptions.
• Kit Kat bars for employee birthdays (recently discontinued after being exposed)
• Memorial flowers when any employee's family member passes
• Pizza! Subs! ad nauseam
• "Thank You" Coffee mugs for bus drivers at one school, but not the others, despite the fact that ALL bus drivers receive something from the district at the end of the year. Ahhh...that "Principal's fund"!
• Let us not forget Jim McCourt's infamous seabass (and shrimp!) dinners on the taxpayers dime
• The $425/month we pay Dr. Culver for "miscellaneous expenses" and "travel within Dane county"...for which NO receipts are required.
• The $1500 travel "stipends" paid to other administrators.
• What are we REALLY getting for the $7300/month paid to our "construction manager"?
• We paid $9,000 per month for FOUR years to an "energy management" consultant firm who basically told us we could save money by turning lights off and lowering thermostats. Genius!
• We didn't even bid out the architects for recent school construction! (Creekside, Horizon, the new high school). For the high school alone, the architects fees, at 5% cost $5M.


• ...and that is but a mere sampling

It adds up, folks. Believe it.
And to those that say it doesn't...methinks thou dost protest too much!

What would YOU do with a $100,000,000 Checkbook?

A funny thing happened during this week's Finance Committee meeting.

During the check approval segment of the agenda, citizen rep Rick Mealy asked why check # 98047 to Klinke Cleaners for $594 ---for cleaning of band uniforms--appeared on the high school construction charges log.

Check# 98047
Vendor: Klinke Cleaners
Amount: $594
Comment: HS Band uniform dry cleaning

All members of the committee--and all meeting attendees-- got quite a chuckle. "It's an error", suggested committee chair Terry Shimek. Phil Frei agreed, "That's probably just an error and we'll clean that up."

End of story right? We got a good chuckle and the joke is over...right?

Wrong.

Phil Frei sent the following e-mail out Tuesday afternoon:

Subject: Klinke Cleaner check question
From: Phil Frei [pfrei@spasd.k12.wi.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:38 PM
To: Al Slane ‎[aaslane@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; Caren Diedrich ‎[crdiedr@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; David Stackhouse ‎[dastack@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; Jill Camber Davidson ‎[jacambe@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; John Whalen ‎[jewhale@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; James McCourt ‎[jrmccou@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; Tim Culver ‎[tculver@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎; Terry Shimek ‎[twshime@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎
Cc: Roger Fetterly ‎[fetterly@charter.net]‎; Rick Mealy ‎[rmealy@charter.net]‎; pastorrayford@fhlfamily.com; Rhonda Page ‎[rspage@spasd.k12.wi.us]‎
.......................................................
Last night at the Finance Meeting there was a question why a Kilnke Cleaner bill showed up on the construction related bills.

Last summer during construction (at the current HS) some band uniforms (tuxedos) got dirty and needed to be dry cleaned. Since this occurred because of the construction, the bill was coded to the construction account.



Hmmm... so it happened during the summer. We only received an invoice on Hallowe'en (of all dates!). We're just paying it in mid-December?


CHECK#_VENDOR___________INVOICE DATE___AMOUNT
98047__KLINKE CLEANERS___10/31/2009_____$594.00

Hold the phone, Tyrone!
Even if the uniforms got a little dusty from construction, is it REALLY appropriate to charge this to the construction fund, which was earmarked for costs due to the construction and equipping of the high school and upper middle school?

Now that the budget is tight are we going to finagle some way of charging every little thing to the construction account...that $100M checkbook funded by John Q. Taxpayer?

We don't think so.

What's next? A little construction dust finds its way into 250 PCs --which just so happen to be at the 5-yr replacement date---and then you'll want to charge the replacement cost (plus 1400 NEW PCs) to the construction account????

Kinda sounds like a game of tit for tat. You mean taxpayers cut our tax levy by $2M so by gosh, by golly, we are going to spend every red cent of that $100M referendum money.

This district just gets crazier by the minute.

$1,106,572 To $15,334

Jeopardy question of the week:
A ratio of 1,106,572 to 15,334

The Answer:
What is the ratio of ONE YEAR (2009-10) budget savings relative to PERMANENT savings approved by the school board at its November 23, 2009 meeting.

Batten the hatches and sew your pockets shut, because the bounceback WILL be here next fall. And that means a BIGGER double digit increase to property taxes next year.

If the school board doesn't mandate * PERMANENT * budget cuts -- and they didn't -- then come this spring, we'll be squarely back at square one. AND...we have the costs of opening the new high school and middle school to boot.

Someone PLEASE explain to the school board that one-year budget cuts don't cut it. We need to get the broom and make some sweeping changes to spending.

...or is the mentality that "they" (school board and district administration) can fill the room with a majority of electors at next year's meeting? Hmm.

That kind of gambling is an illness, folks.

We Guess Sun Prairie just has a Bigger Appetite than Madison!

Madison Mayor Dave Cheeselewinski says Madisonians cannot afford an 8.5% increase to property taxes. Maybe he could pass that on to Mayor Joe during their lunch that Mayor Joe had to buy to catch Dave's ear.

Then maybe Mayor Joe could pass that on to the school board. Of course our mayor sat in on the recent public hearing on the proposed school board budget, and didn't offer any input of any kind.

So...while the public opinion in Madison is that even 4.25% is too much of an increase to swallow, our talented school board members are on the brink of approving a 12.6% increase to the mill rate---or more!

" Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz says there's "no appetite" for an 8.5 percent city property tax increase. No kidding. Even half that number would be scary. With so many people facing wage freezes, furloughs or worse, now is not the time for a fat tax hike. Scale back leaf collection. Eliminate Sunday hours at the Downtown library. Drop a recruit class of firefighters if that's what it takes. But don't jack up property taxes for the sake of status-quo spending. "
--WI State Journal Sunday Opinion

Read the details for the Monday 8/24/09 budget proposal at the school board's Finance Committee

Of course....if no one attends and bothers to comment at school board or Finance committee meetings, then the board WILL do exactly as administration recommends.

So seriously, folks, get off your duff and speak up...or just smile and say. "Thank you, may I have another", when your property tax bill comes in.